>It takes a special kind of fellow to admit on a police department hiring questionnaire that he’s previously had sexual contact with children and that he’s possessed child porn in the past. It takes an even more special (specialer?) fellow to act surprised and hurt when he gets arrested for admitting those things. This established, I think it’s safe to say that Robert Williams is one special fellow, perhaps one of the most special (specialist?) I’ve come across in a long time.
A search warrant affidavit lists question No. 172 from Williams’ applicant questionnaire as trouble.
The question, which asked applicants if they have ever had sexual contact with a child, had a yes answer.
Question No. 175, which asked applicants if they have ever viewed, purchased, sold or subscribed to child pornography, also received a yes response.
10News learned there were two more flagged questions and responses.
Williams, who was recently asked to leave the place he had been staying when the woman who had taken him in discovered some of his child porn, now lives in the George Bailey Detention Facility. He could be there a while since his bail is set at $150,000.
No idea why he would be living with a woman and her son, because the story is about to get better.
Unless a fact is wrong, he’s got a wife. Not only does he have a wife, but he’s got one that’s willing to put herself in front of the media and read dreck like this.
Williams’ wife, Sunem, called 10News to read a statement from him. It said, “The San Diego Police Department has problems with the integrity of their officers because telling the truth during the hiring process brings prosecution upon those seeking employment. Mr. Williams told the truth, revealing his secrets, his thoughts, and his past. But he remains innocent of all charges they have illegally obtained. He is seeking expert counsel, pro bono.”
That, by the way, is the sound of lawyers laughing all the way to the bank with this idiot’s money. Pro bono? As if anybody who isn’t Robert Williams himself is going to represent Robert Williams for free. Is this guy serious?
Well, based on more of his own words, he probably is.
Williams says that he’s a victim of police profiling, a term he clearly doesn’t understand. It’s not profiling if you confess. If the police think you look like a child porn type and discriminate against you based on no more evidence than that, that’s profiling. Saying yes officer, little ones turn me on and I look at and touch them is probable cause at the very least and a confession at most.
Williams claimed that the police captain who administered the application questionnaire told applicants that no officers are perfect and indicated it was all right to admit things such as gang involvement, drug use and other questionable activities. Williams said the captain stressed the importance of honesty. The 38-year-old now claims the police department is now using his honest answers against him.
Yes, honesty is important. But drug use in the past is going to be viewed somewhat differently than child porn possession at any time. There seem to be a lot more reformed substance abusers and petty criminals than there are sex offenders, and the sex offender cases involving children are a special kind of ug for just about anybody. If the police didn’t at least investigate based on those answers, *then* they’d have an integrity problem.
When asked about his affirmative answer to the question, “Have you ever looked at any child for sexual pleasure?” Williams responded, “When you’re a young child, of course you’re going to look at other children.”
Williams added, “I’ve been a virgin until I was 30. I’ve never been sexually active. You know, when I was a child of course I had intent. Who didn’t look at other kids that way?”
If he’s serious he’s not fit to be a police officer, because he’s too stupid to understand simple questions. Kids looking at other kids is not against any law. The problem only comes up when you’re not a kid anymore, but your tastes in partners haven’t grown up with you. And if he’s not serious he’s still not fit to be an officer, because he’s a dishonest pervert.
Williams also answered “Yes” on the application to the question, “Have you ever had sexual contact with a child?” He later wrote in his application that the child was a younger cousin who he almost touched while she was sleeping. He was 23 at the time.
“I’m not going to admit guilt to ever sexually touching my cousin, of course not,” Williams told 10News.
Ok…so why did you pretty much admit guilt then? You either touched somebody or you didn’t, there’s not a whole lot of room for in between here. And for a guy who didn’t do anything wrong, you sure seem hung up on it.
And by the way officers, if you do find questionable images on the computers you took, those are research for a movie called “Cherry Mapping.”
Cherry Mapping? Cherry…Mapping. Like mapping the cherries of young girls? Is there a term here I’m unfamiliar with? At least it’s a real movie that he does appear to have made, so he’s not completely full of shit.
I’ll let Bob end the post, because he can do it better than I.
When asked why he answered the application the way he did, Williams answered, “One, because I certainly wasn’t fearful of prosecution. I wanted to be frank and honest – like I said – stand behind the integrity that I have as a man… I don’t have to lie to benefit from a position of being a public servant… Any activity of that nature was clearly in my past.”
Williams believed that by being honest, he would be hired by the San Diego Police Department.
“Absolutely… That’s why I answered them honestly,” he said, adding that San Diego police betrayed his trust by coercing him to reveal things that landed him in jail.